Delhi Court April 2006 Judgments

intel Corporation Vs. Dinakaran Nair and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT634; 2006(33)PTC345(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, damages and delivery up etc. in respect of name INTEL. The plaintiff has sought permanent injunction in respect of the said name as a trademark, trade name, e-mail and website. 2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of State of Delaware, USA and is aggrieved by use by the defendants of a deceptively similarly mark to its trademark INTEL in the form of ARTINTEL. The defendants are using the mark ARTINTEL as trading style in respect of computers, software development and medical prescription services. The plaintiff claims to be engaged worldwide in the business relating to the field of computers and parts thereof including semi-conductor devices, memory chips, microprocessors, Central Processing Units etc. and have been using the mark/name as its corporate name on its products since 1968, which is the year of its incorporation. 3. The plaintiff claims to hav...

Automobile Assoc. Upper India Vs. the P.O. Labour Court Ii and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT160; (2006)IIILLJ929Del

Gita Mittal, J. 1. This writ petition raises a very fundamental issue in industrial adjudication. The question which requires to be answered is as to whether a workman can rest his case solely on a plea set up by the management, thereby, shifting the onus and burden of proof of proving his claimed employment totally upon the management. It appears that the respondent No. 2 Shri Chotey Lal set up a plea that he was employed with the Automobile Association of India, petitioner herein, as a watchman on a monthly salary of Rs. 300/- per month. It was claimed that he was working with the management for the last seven years and was appointed at the car parking behind the LIC Building. The workman set up a claim that his services were illegally terminated on 22nd September, 1989 and that wages of Rs. 3200/- for the period November, 1988 to September, 1989 were due and payable to him. Further an amount of Rs. 4950/- was claimed as arrears for the period 1987 to 1988 at the rate of Rs. 562/- an...

Sultan Singh Vs. Dtc

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT174

Gita Mittal, J.1. The instant case raises a question as to whether an employer can be permitted to contend that it can be permitted to prove a case entirely different from the charge against the workman and still it urge that the workman was guilty of the case which was proved and not of the case with which he was charged. As a corollary, the question which has arisen as to whether the workman would be precluded from raising an objection to this effect in a writ petition filed by him impugning such action of his employer and the award of the industrial adjudicator on such plea, if he had not specifically raised the same in any proceedings prior thereto.2. The petitioner in the instant case was employed as a driver with the DTC with effect from 1st August, 1975. On 26th October, 1983 he was on duty with bus No. DLP 1230 on the Delhi-Shimla route. Allegations were leveled against the petitioner to the effect that when the checking officials gave a signal and blew the whistle to the petit...

State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2871; 129(2006)DLT481; 2006(89)DRJ568

Manju Goel, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal in case FIR No. 461/79 P.S. Kingsway Camp, Delhi under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC'). The two accused, Kuldeep Kaur and Jitender Kaur @ Veenu, were the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of late Tarvinder Kaur (hereinafter referred to as `the deceased'). The deceased was admitted to LNJP Hospital on the evening of 15.5.1979, with severe burn injuries on her body. She eventually expired on 19.5.1979. The two accused (respondents herein) were accused of having killed the deceased by causing the burns. Kuldeep Kaur allegedly poured the kerosene oil on the deceased and Jitender Kaur set her on fire by means of a matchstick. The deceased was married to Sat Pal son of Sardar Harbans Singh resident of F-3/7, Model Town, Delhi on 3.12.1978. The unfortunate incident took place on 15.5.1979. The prosecution case relies upon two dying declarations of the deceased, one recorded by a police sub-inspector ...

Cit Vs. Vikramajit Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]292ITR274(Delhi)

1. For the assessment year 2001-02, the respondent- assessed claimed to have made certain repayment of what according to it was a loan taken from a sisterconcern. The assessing officer held that this repayment was contrary to the provisions of Section 269T of the Income Tax Act, which inter alia, required that such repayment could not be made except by an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft drawn in the name of the person who had advanced the loan. A penalty of Rs. 17,88,090 was accordingly levied by the assessing officer upon the assessed under Section 271E of the said Act. Aggrieved the assessed appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who reversed the order passed by the assessing officer holding that Section 269T had no application to the repayment of a loan. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was a clear distinction between a deposit and a loan and that the statute as it existed during the year under consideration dealt with repayment of deposit and not with ...

A.C. Nielsen Org Marg (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC101

1. These two appeals arise from the common order made on 11.2.2004 by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 87,720/- (Appeal No. Service Tax/71/04-NB-S) and penalty of the like amount along with interest as directed, and demand of Rs. 2,55,929/-(Appeal No. ST/70/04-NB-S) with penalty under Section 76 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day subject to not exceeding Rs. 1,17,493/-.2. The appellant company was registered as service provider in the field of marketing research services, which is a taxable service under the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant had filed tax return on 8.5.2000 for the months of April 1999 to September 1999 with a delay of 196 days. A show cause notice dated 31.7.2000 was, therefore, issued on the appellant in respect of the recovery of tax short paid with interest and proposing penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the said Act. The appellant did not file reply, nor did it attend for personal hear...

Sanghi Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC49

1. The issue involved in this case is regarding denial of Modvat Credit to the appellants on the following 4 items: (i) Ligh Diesel Oil/Furnace Oil used in Power Plant situated 12 kms away from clinker unit; (ii) Steel Plates, H.R. Plates, H.R. Coils, Corrugated sheets, Flats/Angles, Reinforcing bar, Beam/Chanels Iron & Steel, 2. The credit on the above items is sought to be denied on the various grounds and few of them being inputs not used in the factory, no evidence produced to show that they are using capital goods in respect of transmission line and they are not capital goods etc.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. At the outset learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants, submitted that they are not challenging the credit of the duty on welding electrodes. To that extent appeal of the appellants is rejected. He also submitted that in respect of consumption of Steel Plates, H.R. Plates, H.R. Coils, Corrugated sheets, Flats/Angles, etc.i...

Sct Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appeal was dismissed for want of appearance. Learned Counsel explained the reason causing his absence. Explanation is accepted and appeal restored.2. The appeal challenges the direction to make payment of entire duty confirmed with interest as well as penalty of Rs. 5000/-.3. Contentions of the counsel are twofold. First is that this direction is contrary to the earlier observation in Para 6 (viii) of the impugned Order that the orders impugned before the Commissioner were illegal.The second contention is that duty remained correctly discharged.4. It is seen that the proceedings in the present case have emanated from some delay in the discharge of duty liability on fortnightly basis by the appellant. Because of that delay, the Asst. Commissioner stopped the appellants' facility to pay duty from Cenvat account. Still, the appellant continued to pay duty from Cenvat Credit. The payment so made were considered incorrect by the Dy. Commissioner and fresh duty demand made. The appea...

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)112TTJ(Delhi)702

1. These are cross-appeals relating to the asst. yr. 1995-96. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of portable generator sets, general purpose engines and water pumps. We are concerned with the previous year ended 31st March, 1995, for which an assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act was made by order dt.12th March, 1998.2. Additional ground: At the time of the hearing, the assessee filed an additional ground and sought admission of the same which is as follows: That on the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 14,87,885 being non-refundable tooling advance paid to the vendors in the relevant previous year and would have been allowed revenue deduction.It is common ground that the assessee did not raise this point either before the CIT(A) or in the memorandum of appeal originally filed before the Tribunal. This should not be an impediment to admitting the same as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Orissa Cement Ltd. v.CIT (2001) 169 CTR (...

Suraj Bhan Bajaj Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)102TTJ(Delhi)665

These are cross-appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 10-1-2003 for the assessment year 1995-96, in the matter of order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) read with section 148.The assessee is aggrieved by action of Commissioner (Appeals) in confirming an addition of Rs. 90,000 under section 68 in respect of gifts received from the close relatives and family friends. The revenue is aggrieved for deletion of addition of Rs. 4,10,000 on account of gift alleged to be received by the assessee and deletion of addition of Rs. 76,000 on account of loan.Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee constructed a residential house, the cost of which was shown at Rs. 2,50,000 before ADIT (Investigation).Considering the cost of construction low, reference was made to the DVO who has determined the cost of construction at Rs. 11.86 lakhs and period of constructio...